Jury still out on international war crimes system

April 30, 2012|Reuters

By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent

WASHINGTON, April 30 (Reuters) - Former Liberian PresidentCharles Taylor's war crimes conviction may be seen in somequarters as a victory for global justice, but a backlash againstcostly, lengthy international tribunals is also underway.

Found guilty of aiding and abetting a host of crimesincluding murder, rape and torture as well as arming brutalSierra Leonean rebels, Taylor became the first head of state tobe convicted by an international tribunal since the NurembergTrials after World War Two. He will be sentenced on May 30.

While Adolf Hitler avoided justice at Nuremberg bycommitting suicide in his Berlin bunker, his successor AdmiralKarl Doenitz was convicted of crimes against the laws of war andplanning a war of aggression.

Human rights groups and western governments in particularwelcomed the Taylor verdict, saying it stood as a warning toothers that while the wheels of justice might take a long timeto turn, the age of impunity for national leaders was over.

But with the United Nations-backed "hybrid" court trial -including both international and Sierra Leonean members - takinga decade and costing an estimated $50 million, some see that assimplistic. Some put the cost of the entire Sierra Leonetribunal process at some $200 million, while British newspaperscomplained that plans for Taylor to serve his sentence in aBritish prison could cost taxpayers up to 100,000 pounds a year.

At the very least, some wonder whether the money could havebeen better spent in impoverished West Africa.

While Taylor's prosecution was handled by a tribunal onlylooking at one conflict - Sierra Leone, not the Liberian civilwar in which he is also accused of mass atrocities - most morerecent war crimes cases are in the hands of the InternationalCriminal Court.

That has now issued indictments for crimes committed in sixcountries - Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Sudan, CentralAfrican Republic, Libya and Kenya - and found itself comingunder growing criticism itself.

"No one's in favour of impunity," says Jennifer Cooke, headof the Africa programme at the Centre for Strategic andInternational Studies in Washington DC. "But there are growingquestions about the way in which international justice is beingcarried out in cases like this. There's the cost, there is thetime and with the ICC there are complaints that they are onlytargeting Africans."

Others say that while the system remains deeply imperfect,and does almost invariably find itself targeting less powerfulcountries and their leaders, it is improving.

The fact that some of the first recent war crimes trialswere for abuses in the former Yugoslavia, they say, suggestAfrican complaints of victimisation may be wide of the mark.That prosecution remains a distant dream in many conflicts, theysay, does not make the process a bad thing.

"There is no doubt...(the) verdict sends an importantmessage to high-ranking state officials; no matter who you areor what position you hold, you will be brought to justice forcrimes," said Brima Abdulai Sheriff, Director of AmnestyInternational Sierra Leone.

Other voices, however, worry that on occasion war crimescharges themselves may be making it harder, not easier to bringpeace. Indicted war criminals such as Ugandan Lord's ResistanceArmy leader Joseph Kony might become more reluctant to agreepeace deals.

Less punitive systems such as South Africa's Truth andReconciliation Commission, where abusers were granted amnesty ifthey told the truth, are held up as alternative models. Butother recent attempts, such as Sri Lanka's recent inquiry afterits civil war, have been widely criticised as whitewashinggovernment acts.

"Prosecution is very important," says Colette Rausch,director of the rule of law program at the United StatesInstitute for Peace. "(But) it's not the only thing when youlook at it from a transitional justice perspective -- looking atthe transition from conflict to peace. It doesn't necessarily heal all wounds and it doesn't necessarily help individualvictims."

JUSTICE DELAYED, DENIED?

The failure to hold other heads of state accountable,experts say, reveals some more of the struggles internationaljustice faces.

The trial of Slobodan Milosevic, the Yugoslav leader accusedof orchestrating multiple atrocities during the Bosnia andKosovo wars, died in 2006 with his trial unconcluded. Criticssaid he had been simply allowed to prolong his trial too long,effectively denying justice to his victims.

Sudan's President Omar Al Bashir, indicted for war crimesand crimes against humanity in 2009 and for genocide thefollowing year, remains not just at large but still in power.

The charges hanging over his head do not appear to havesignificantly weakened him domestically or perhaps even withinAfrica. The African Union and Arab League both condemned theindictment, and he has since visited several countries includingDjibouti, Egypt and Kenya -- a move some worry has essentiallymade a mockery of the court.